The director of education
for the Royal Society of
London, Michael Reiss, resigned
from his position on September 16,
2008, in the wake of a controversy
occasioned by his recent remarks
on creationism — even though
Reiss, a biologist, accepts evolution,
recognizes that creationism lacks
any scientific legitimacy, and
believes that students ought to be
told, when the subject arises, that
creationism has no scientific basis.

Reiss's remarks were apparently
offered during the British
Association for the Advancement
of Science's Festival of Science,
which took place September 6–11,
2008, in Liverpool; he subsequently
posted a corresponding essay,
"Science lessons should tackle creationism
and intelligent design," on
the Guardian's science blog on
September 11, 2008. In the latter, Reiss posed the question,
"What should science teachers do
when faced with students who are
creationists?" and answered that
"when teaching evolution, there is
much to be said for allowing students
to raise any doubts they have
(hardly a revolutionary idea in science
teaching) and doing one's
best to have a genuine discussion."

Reiss added, "The word 'genuine'
doesn't mean that creationism
or intelligent design deserve
equal time." He was also careful to
note that whether such a discussion
would be appropriate
depends "on the comfort of the
teacher in dealing with such issues
and the make-up of the student
body," adding, "I don't believe that
such teaching is easy."
Nevertheless, he insisted, "I do
believe in taking seriously and
respectfully the concerns of students
who do not accept the theory
of evolution, while still introducing
them to it. While it is unlikely
that this will help students who
have a conflict between science
and their religious beliefs to resolve
the conflict, good science teaching
can help students to manage it —
and to learn more science."

Unfortunately, the content of
Reiss's message was distorted and
sensationalized in the British
media. For example, the story in
the Times of London (2008 Sep
12) was headlined "Leading scientist
urges teaching of creationism
in schools," and began,
"Creationism should be taught in
science classes as a legitimate
point of view, according to the
Royal Society, putting the august
science body on a collision course
with the Government"; the
Telegraph's story (2008 Sep 11)
was similarly headlined
"Creationism should be taught in
science classes, says expert," and
subheaded, "The theory of creationism
should be taught alongside
evolution in school science
lessons, a leading biologist and
education expert has said."

The Royal Society observed in a
September 12, 2008, press release that "The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being
taught as science," citing the 2006
Interacademy Panel statement (see
RNCSE 2006 Jul/Aug; 26 [4]: 13–6)
on the teaching of evolution, to
which the Royal Society is a signatory.
It also quoted a clarification
from Reiss: "Creationism has no scientific
basis. However, when young
people ask questions about creationism
in science classes, teachers
need to be able to explain to them
why evolution and the Big Bang are
scientific theories but they should
also take the time to explain how
science works and why creationism
has no scientific basis."

Nevertheless, there was a quick
outcry from a number of British
scientists. Richard Roberts, a member
of the Royal Society and a
Nobel Prize winner, was quoted in
the Guardian (2008 Sep 14) as saying,
"I think it is outrageous that
this man is suggesting that creationism
should be discussed in a
science classroom. It is an incredible
idea and I am drafting a letter to
other Nobel laureates — which
would be sent to the Royal Society
— to ask that Reiss be made to
stand down." And Roberts indeed
sent a letter endorsed by his
fellow laureates Harold Kroto and
John Sulston to the Royal Society,
complaining about Reiss's remarks
as reported.

Part of the outcry centered on
the fact that, in addition to being a
biologist and professor of science
education, Reiss is also a clergyman,
ordained in the Church of England.
Richard Dawkins told the Guardian
(2008 Sep 14), "A clergyman in
charge of education for the country's
leading scientific organisation
— it's a Monty Python sketch," and
Roberts's letter to the Royal Society
commented, "We gather Professor
Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself
is very worrisome. Who on earth
thought that he would be an appropriate
Director of Education, who
could be expected to answer questions
about the differences between
science and religion in a scientific,
reasoned way?"

Subsequently, in a September
16, 2008, letter to New Scientist,
Dawkins distanced himself from
the call for Reiss's ouster, describing
Roberts's letter's complaint
about Reiss's clerical status as "a little
too close to a witch-hunt for my
squeamish taste," characterizing his
Monty Python comparison as "a little
uncharitable," and commenting,
"Although I disagree with him,
what he actually said at the British
Association is not obviously silly
like creationism itself, nor is it a
self-evidently inappropriate stance
for the Royal Society to take." (He
also mentioned "Eugenie Scott,
whose National Center for Science
Education is doing splendid work
in fighting the creationist
wingnuts in America.")

Dawkins's limited defense
notwithstanding, the Royal Society
announced Reiss's resignation on
September 16, 2008. According to
a press release, "Some of Professor
Michael Reiss's recent comments,
on the issue of creationism in
schools, while speaking as the
Royal Society's Director of
Education, were open to misinterpretation.
While it was not his
intention, this has led to damage to
the Society's reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the
Royal Society have agreed that, in
the best interests of the Society, he
will step down immediately as
Director of Education."

It wasn't only scientists who
were critical of Reiss's remarks as
reported. After Reiss's resignation,
Phil Willis, a Member of Parliament
who chairs the Commons
Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee, expressed
satisfaction with the result, telling
the Times of London (2008 Sep
17), "I hope the society will now
stop burying its head and start taking
on creationism." Previously
Wills told the Times (2008 Sep 16),
"I was horrified to hear these views
and I reject them totally. They are a
step too far and they fly in the face
of what science is about. I think if
his [Professor Reiss's] views are as
mentioned they may be incompatible
with his position."

Not all members of the British
scientific community were critical
of Reiss. After his resignation,
Roland Jackson, chief executive of
the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, told BBC
News (2008 Sep 16) that his departure
was a "real loss," adding, "I was
at the actual discussion and what I
heard him say, however it has been
reported, was essentially the position
advocated by the Royal
Society." Robert Winston, professor
of science and society at Imperial
College London and a distinguished
medical scientist and science
popularizer, lamented, "This is
not a good day for the reputation
of science or scientists."

Paul Nurse, a member of the
Royal Society and Nobel laureate
who did not sign the Roberts letter,
took a somewhat intermediate
position, telling Nature (in a piece
published on-line under the dreadful
headline "Creationism stir fries
Reiss"; 2008 Sep 17), "It does not
matter what someone's religious
beliefs are as long as he does the
job properly. The issue for me here
is his competency in the job. I only
saw the media coverage of his
speech, but it does not look as
though he handled it well. Because
creationism in the classroom is
such a sensitive subject, you have
to be very careful and very clear
about what you say."

Across the Atlantic, Leslie S
Jones of Valdosta State University,
who coedited a recent anthology,
Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism
(New York: Peter Lang Publishing,
2007; reviewed in RNCSE 2008
May/Jun; 28 [3]: 23–5), with Reiss,
expressed shock at the events. She
told Nature (on-line; 2008 Sep 17),
"Michael has a rare blend of transdisciplinary
credentials that give
him critical insight into the social
controversy surrounding the teaching
of evolution. He has never advocated
the teaching of creationism."

A subsequent editorial in
Nature (2008; 445: 431–2) argued:

Those who argue that allowing
discussion of creationism
in a science class gives it
legitimacy, and that students
who ask about it should be
firmly directed to take their
questions elsewhere, are misguided.

Eugenie Scott, executive
director of the National
Center for Science Education
in Oakland, California, and a
long-time advocate for the
teaching of evolution, points
out that in the real world, any
such shut-up-and-take-it-elsewhere
response from the
teacher will inevitably be
perceived by the student
(and his or her classmates) as
a humiliating personal putdown.
It will obstruct rather
than encourage enquiry and
understanding. It will also
invite complaints from outraged
parents.

What is more, it will
squander what experienced
educators like to call "a
teachable moment". All too
often, that moment is the
one opportunity that a
school has to engage resistant
students and introduce
them to what science has to
say.

Reiss is returning to his position of
Professor of Science Education at
the Institute of Education at the
University of London.